45 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(03/21/19 9:59am)
There are some things we know about Middlebury. That more than a tenth of all its students are Economics majors, that more than a fifth come from families in the richest 1 percent of the U.S. and that the college has an 8:1 student–faculty ratio.
What we don’t know as clearly is how race is perceived on campus, what work-life balance looks like for the average Middlebury student, or what students truly think of party culture. These questions are left undiscussed because they are uncomfortable, nuanced and often difficult to approach.
Zeitgeist, The Campus’ first annual student survey, aims to change that.
As a forum for the Middlebury community, The Campus’ role is to tell its stories, whether they be conspicuous truths or underlying narratives waiting to be discovered. Combining data analysis and journalism, we hope to present these stories quantitatively and qualitatively in this project.
We want to explore topics that will not appear in an admissions brochure — how accessible mental health resources are, how the experiences of students of color differ from those of white students, and the realities of sexual health and relationships. We hope that Zeitgeist will create new openings for students to engage with difficult topics and that our findings will spark dialogue and lead to productive conversations within and between communities.
When we asked you for input in an email last week, we noted that “Belonging” emerged as a prominent theme, as indicated in the graph.
Students submitted questions for the survey such as: What made you feel othered? Have you ever experienced imposter syndrome? Do you feel like you miss out due to financial limitations? Do you want to transfer?
These questions tell us that many of us grapple with issues of affinity, acceptance and inclusion in a wide spectrum of ways. Our hope is that Zeitgeist will help each of us understand how we fit into the Middlebury puzzle. Please help us by participating in the survey that will be open for responses beginning April 2.
(02/23/19 1:40pm)
Divestment has been a long process involving protests and marches, panels of students and experts and votes by students, faculty and other community forums. This interactive timeline walks through some of the most important events along Middlebury's path to divestment.
[infographic align="left"][/infographic]
(02/13/19 2:31am)
(02/13/19 2:28am)
The Campus is excited to launch a new translation initiative with the aim of making its articles and content accessible to a broader community of readers whose preferred language is not English. Learn more about the initiative and how to get involved here.
Interested in getting involved with The Middlebury Campus? Reach out directly to the senior editor in your section of interest.
Writing samples and brief statements of interest are not required but are helpful.
You can contact senior editors using the information listed below or send an email to campus@middlebury.edu.
News
Abbie Chang
akchang@middlebury.edu
Local
Lucy Townend
ltownend@middlebury.edu
Arts & Culture
Owen Mason-Hill
omasonhill@middlebury.edu
Opinion
Porter Bowman
pbowman@middlebury.edu
Sports
Blaise Siefer
bsiefer@middlebury.edu
Online
Emmanuel Tamrat
etamrat@middlebury.edu
(01/24/19 10:59am)
Results from a 2017 faculty and staff survey reveal that Middlebury lags well behind its peers in almost all measures of employee satisfaction. Most notably, faculty and staff gave low marks to communication within and between departments as well as confidence in senior leadership.
The consulting firm ModernThink, which has administered similar surveys for colleges and universities across the country, conducted the Middlebury survey in October 2017. 1,046 faculty and staff members across both the Vermont and Monterey campuses took part in the survey — a response rate of 68 percent.
The survey comprised 60 core belief statements included in all ModernThink surveys and seven custom statements provided by the college itself. Faculty and staff responded to each statement expressing their level of agreement on a spectrum from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree,” creating 67 distinct indicators. For example, one indicator asked respondents to react to the statement: “Our review process accurately measures my job performance.” Grouping responses to each statement into positive, neutral and negative categories, the report — if taken at face value — conveys an overall positive image of job satisfaction at Middlebury.
The Campus obtained the complete survey results, significant portions of which have not previously been released to the student body and general public. In particular, these fuller results include a benchmark that allows for comparison between Middlebury and other baccalaureate colleges that have been surveyed by ModernThink.
Administrators delivered key survey findings at a staff meeting in Dana Auditorium in January 2018, led by then-Interim Provost Jeff Cason, Vice President for Human Resources Karen Miller and ModernThink representative Richard Boyer. While the presentation disclosed Middlebury’s low-performing areas, including perceptions of senior leadership and the effectiveness of communication structures, it juxtaposed Middlebury’s results only with ModernThink’s 2017 Honor Roll of small colleges and not with the national average for baccalaureate colleges.
The honor roll benchmark includes only the highest-performing schools surveyed by ModernThink, numbering nine total in 2017, including institutions such as Mississippi University for Women and New York Chiropractic College. In other words, the presentation exclusively contrasted Middlebury’s performance with those institutions with the very highest levels of staff satisfaction in the country while failing to disclose that Middlebury also consistently performed below the national average for colleges of its kind. Middlebury did not simply fail to reach the highest standard, it also fell short of the average benchmark.
Only five of the 60 core belief indicators met or exceeded Middlebury’s peer group average, with 27 falling into the “Red Flag” and “Acute” classifications defined by ModernThink. “Acute” is a category of performance below “Red Flag,” denoting positive response rates lower than 45%.
A college news release published several weeks after last year’s presentation begins by stating that “a majority of faculty and staff have a positive overall working experience, value the sense of community engendered by Middlebury, enjoy a high degree of ‘job fit,’ and appreciate the flexibility and autonomy their jobs afford.’” The release does not discuss how Middlebury’s results compare to the national averages.
Responding to the survey, the college has developed a four-pronged action plan that addresses the onboarding process for new hires, compensation, the Annual Performance Summary tool and performance management. It includes timelines for each of these areas, hoping to complete all of them by the fall of 2020.
According to Bill Burger, Middlebury’s vice president for communications and chief marketing officer, the survey results have also informed how the administration has conducted the workforce planning process.
“It has certainly underscored the importance of communication on this, and I think we’ve made an effort to communicate more,” he said. “Although my guess is you can never be sufficient in that — there will always be some people who feel they haven’t been communicated to enough.”
Burger said that Middlebury is also looking more closely at compensation rewards and incentives, in response to low scores in those categories.
“A lot of staff didn’t feel there was appropriate recognition for work well-done and that work well-done wasn’t rewarded appropriately in terms of compensation,” Burger said. “So we hope that through this (workforce planning) process we will emerge so that we can be not locked into the annual 2 percent or 2.25 percent increase that goes to virtually everyone, but that we’ll have more flexibility to reward people for a really exceptional performance.”
Still, only 45 percent of respondents expressed confidence when asked if they expected senior leadership to take action based on the results of the survey.
“The administration does not seem to want to listen and they do not seem to care. If you say something, it is held against you,” said one staff member who asked to remain anonymous for fear of retribution. “You are underappreciated no matter what you do.”
By the numbers
A total of 1046 respondents took the survey, with the response rate standing at 68 percent. The majority of respondents work in Vermont and are staff (either exempt or non-exempt).
In the Overall Survey Average, Middlebury performs below the average for Baccalaureate Colleges. 57 percent of responses were positive, 25 percent were neutral, and 14 percent were negative. The percentages do not total to 100 percent because of a “not applicable” option in the survey.
The survey also groups statements into categories. In each sectional average, Middlebury consistently falls below both its peer group and the Honor Roll benchmark.
Breaking down the data into specific statements, the college also fails to meet the national benchmark in each of the individual indicators. Each indicator is plotted with the benchmark score on the x-axis and the Middleburry score on the y-axis. Thus, the 45 degree line represents any point that reaches the benchmark value. Any point below the line represents an indicator not meeting the Baccalaureate average.
There is a stark contrast between perceptions of supervisors/academic leaders and senior leadership. Senior Leadership was amongst one of the three poorest-performing categories — the other two being Communication and Faculty, Administration & Staff Relations.
Faculty and staff expressed a uniform lack of confidence in senior leadership. Only 45 percent of respondents gave positive feedback when asked if they expect senior leadership to take action based on the results of the survey.
Looking forward, morale remains low with workforce planning looming on the horizon. Only 39 percent of respondents expressed confidence in the institution moving forward as a whole.
Graphics by Bochu Ding, using data from ModernThink.
Nick Garber contributed reporting.
For full staff issue coverage, click here.
(11/15/18 10:59am)
Since participating in the racial justice protests in Ferguson, Mo. in 2014, DeRay Mckesson has been wearing the same blue Patagonia vest that he wore there.
“It keeps me grounded and reminded that everything we went through is real, that we were in the streets for four hundred days,” said Mckesson, now a prominent Black Lives Matter activist. “I never want to forget how fragile freedom is and this vest reminds me of it.”
Mckesson sported the trademark vest as he spoke in Wilson Hall on Nov. 7 in a talk titled “Political Activism and the Case for Hope.” An author, podcaster and organizer, Mckesson’s reputation as a civil rights activist gathered a crowd that quickly exceeded Wilson’s capacity.
After graduating from Bowdoin College in 2007, Mckesson worked for Teach for America before serving as the Senior Director for Human Capital at the Minneapolis Public Schools.
Following the death of Michael Brown, Mckesson embarked on a trip to Ferguson to protest against police violence. He began to spend all of his weekends and breaks in St. Louis, culminating in his eventual departure from his stable job in Minneapolis and relocation to St. Louis.
[pullquote speaker="DeRay Mckesson" photo="" align="center" background="on" border="all" shadow="on"]I never want to forget how fragile freedom is and this vest reminds me of it.[/pullquote]
“I didn’t know many things, but I knew that Mike Brown should be alive today,” Mckesson said.
There, he organized and participated in protest efforts full-time. In a Buzzfeed News interview, Mckesson recounts being tear-gassed, dragged out of the police department by his ankles, and shot at. His activism and real-time updates on Twitter and other social media platforms brought him and his blue Patagonia vest into the national spotlight.
“The people who told our story and amplified it were doing work that was vital, because CNN wasn’t doing it, the newspapers weren’t doing it — Twitter was what we had,” Mckesson said, reflecting on the importance of social media platforms.
Today, he serves as the Interim Chief of Human Capital at Baltimore City High Schools. He continues to serve as an inspiration for activism efforts, hosting the popular podcast Pod Save the People, and reflecting on his journey in Ferguson in his memoir, “The Other Side of Freedom: The Case for Hope.”
THINGS ON HIS MIND
Introduced by SGA President Nia Robinson ’19, Mckesson shared his reflections about civil rights activism in the modern age, as well as methods for catalyzing social change. Speaking a day after the midterm elections, Mckesson did not hesitate to point to real world examples.
Prompting the audience with a question of how they would spend $300, Mckesson revealed that thefts of over $300 are classified as felonies in Florida, previously permanently barring the perpetrator from voting and running for office. This exercise was a reference to the amendment in Florida, passed the day before, that restored felons’ voting rights.
[pullquote speaker="DeRay Mckesson" photo="" align="center" background="on" border="all" shadow="on"]More people are in love with the idea of resistance than the work of resistance.[/pullquote]
He also pointed to other injustices, such as the fact that the U.S. arrests more people for marijuana possession than all violent crimes combined.
In addition to identifying problems, Mckesson also identified effective methods of mobilizing others for social change. “More people are in love with the idea of resistance than the work of resistance,” he said.
Mckesson transitioned to “10 points on my mind,” a set of pragmatic approaches that engage audiences and spark dialogue with bystanders and opponents. To begin, he spoke about “entrances and on-ramps” and how it is the responsibility of organizers to find an array of entry points for others to find their reason to support the cause. Mckesson argues that activists must descend from their moral high ground to reach a wider audience.
Mckesson also spoke about how to best engage with opponents in debate. He introduced the concept of “sharing the cognitive burden,” where activists shift the responsibility of thinking about the issue and practicing empathy to those that oppose them.
“Tell me what a four-year-old should do to deserve dinner?” Mckesson asked, as an example of why the cognitive burden must be shared.
Finally, Mckesson spoke about “building the largest choir.” He does not advocate for trying to convince the minds of those opposed to the advancement of civil rights. “People ask me what I’m doing to reach across the aisle, and I’m not reaching,” he said.
Rather, he believes that efforts should be concentrated on energizing the people that care, or have the potential to do so. He explains that people are just waiting to receive the invitation, and that his experience as a teacher has taught him to believe in potential yet to be developed.
REFLECTIONS ON THE TALK
The talk, part of the Engaged Listening Project, followed a new format where the lecture was followed by reflections in small groups on the contents of the talk.
[pullquote speaker="Wengel Kifle '20" photo="" align="center" background="on" border="all" shadow="on"]It is refreshing and re-energizing to be reassured that the fight is able to be continued with people that share some basic agreement, of basic humanity and respect for lives and facts.[/pullquote]
“I was particularly moved by his example of ‘sharing the cognitive burden,’” said Sophie Clark ’21. “I think many young progressives are frustrated by seemingly endless preaching with responses that vary from apathy to outright resistance, but Mckesson has found a way to turn this around - to put opponents in his shoes not by being condescending or “preachy,” but by being genuinely curious to how their perspective fits in a wider world view.”
Wengel Kifle ’20 resonated with Mckesson’s point about “growing the choir.”
“For some people, and Mckesson touched upon this, ‘reaching across the aisle’ is life-threatening or frankly pointless when the audience has not even decided to agree that you are a capable human being, if even equally human,” she said. “It is refreshing and re-energizing to be reassured that the fight is able to be continued with people that share some basic agreement, of basic humanity and respect for lives and facts.”
Others found Mckesson’s advice for current students to be the most inspirational.
“The most important thing I think about is how he talked about following your curiosity,” said SGA President Nia Robinson ’19. “I think in the context of education, social justice, and life in general it’s applicable.”
(11/08/18 10:58am)
The faculty voted by a wide margin to endorse the Student Government Association (SGA) fossil fuel divestment bill in a Sense of the Faculty Motion on Friday, Nov. 2. Professors Michael Sheridan, Jon Isham, Kemi Fuentes-George and Maggie Clinton spearheaded the proposal, which passed by an 86-7 vote, seeking to officially affirm the faculty’s support for the divestment proposition. Titled “Resolution to Divest Middlebury’s Endowment From Fossil Fuels,” the SGA proposal will be discussed at a Board of Trustees meeting in January.
After an initial introduction by the cohort of professors, SGA Co-Director of Environmental Affairs Divya Gudur ’21 and Alice Butler ’19 elaborated on the focal points of the SGA effort to the faculty audience. The two students were joined by SGA Co-Director of Environmental Affairs Leif Taranta ’20.5, Lucy Weiss ’20.5 and Cora Kircher ’20 in the audience, who later responded to questions from the faculty.
Isham read a statement from Bill McKibben, a scholar-in-residence and one of the world’s leading environmentalists, urging the faculty to support the proposition. The floor was then opened to debate.
The discussion was primarily centered around the fiscal responsibility of divesting. Professor of Mathematics Peter Schumer questioned the presenters on whether there would be financial ramifications to the measure. The proponents, in turn, cited a comparison between two nearly identical 2010 MSCI indices, with the sustainable alternative sporting .97-percent higher returns.
Professor of Political Science Keegan Callanan expressed doubt, pointing to a Swarthmore study that concluded that divesting would cost $200 million over the next 10 years. Framing divestment as a result of “fluttery hearts” easily wavered by moral righteousness, Callanan also stated that the financial repercussions may influence the college’s ability to provide financial aid.
Taranta, who self-identified as a recipient of financial aid, expressed their frustration at Callanan’s attempt to hold hostage the divestment effort with financial aid priorities.
“These are not fluttery hearts, they’re the opposite,” added Isham, responding to Callanan’s earlier comparison. The two received a round of applause from the faculty.
Fuentes-George also cautioned against associating divestment with financial losses. He pointed to the surge in alumni donations in early adopters of divestment. Professor of Anthropology Marybeth Nevins said that divestment itself is deeply associated with 350.org and Middlebury. Being consistent with the institution’s image in the public sphere, Nevins argued, is the best way to lead by example.
Ultimately, the motion was passed with an overwhelming majority. While the Sense of the Faculty Motion is not a binding decision for the college, it is a rare occurrence and bears significant weight.
“In this case, we were acting in an advisory capacity because our job as a faculty is teaching and scholarship, not financial management,” Sheridan said. “But the administration usually takes this sort of advice seriously, because faculty governance is one of the things that makes Midd work the way it does.”
One previous example of the Sense of the Faculty Motion was when the faculty voted to forward diversity-enhancing initiatives at the college, which have since been incorporated by the administration.
“In this case, however, we’re advising the college how to present the general will of the community to the Board of Trustees in their January meeting,” Sheridan said.
The student leaders, who garnered the support of the faculty, will present the endowment divestment bill this January. “We’re excited for the concrete faculty support and what comes next with the January Board of Trustees meeting,” Gudur said.
They are currently conversing with Executive Vice President for Finance and Administration David Provost, who is coordinating with the administration to find options to replace the fossil fuel investments in the endowment.
“There will be several calls with board members over the next weeks, and they are hoping to ratify a proposal in the January board meeting,” Taranta said.
(11/01/18 9:56am)
MIDDLEBURY — The race to represent Addison County in the Vermont Senate is shaping up to be one of the most competitive in the state’s history. With the announcement of Claire Ayer’s ’92 (D-Addison) retirement, six candidates are vying to fill the district’s two seats in Montpelier. Total campaign funding has exceeded $100,000, a historic high, making up a disproportionate 20 percent of the total Vermont Senate campaign financing across 13 different districts.
Incumbent Sen. Chris Bray (D-Addison), seeking to defend his seat, is joined by fellow Democratic candidate Ruth Hardy. Two “pro-business” Independents, Blue Spruce Farm owner Marie Audet and Vermont Coffee Company owner Paul Ralston, have also entered the race on a joint ticket, with the support of Gov. Phil Scott (R). Republican Peter Briggs and Libertarian Archie Flower are also running in the highly contested election.
Ayer’s vacant seat prompted Ruth Hardy to put her name on the ticket, but Hardy is no stranger to politics. She serves as the executive director of Emerge Vermont, a non-profit organization that trains and helps women run for office, graduating prominent alumnae such as Christine Hallquist, this year’s Democratic gubernatorial nominee. She also served three terms on local school boards.
“By running for the State Senate myself, I am walking the talk,” Hardy said. “I am doing what I ask of other women – which is to step up and run for office when the opportunity arises and when the need is great.”
This may in part explain why Hardy, a first-time senate candidate, has amassed the most individual donors of any candidate, and obtained endorsements from key Democratic figures like former Governor Madeleine Kunin, the state’s first and only female governor, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) and Ayer herself. Hardy’s platform focuses on access to healthcare, affordable education and child care, as well as climate change.
After knocking on more than 1,500 doors, she concluded that health care access and affordability is the number one concern of Addison County residents.
“What I am hearing from voters over and over again is that they are worried about health care,” Hardy said. “What I would like to work on is having universal access to primary care as a starter for Vermont.”
Audet, the other first-time candidate, describes herself as an “organic candidate,” saying that her extensive experience in local business and her ties to the community are what pushed her to put her name on the ballot.
“Paul and I are coming at this from a position of experience, having firm ties to our communities, and being leaders in our communities as people who do things for the growth of our communities,” Audet said. “I felt that it would be good for the legislature to have some regular working folks — boots-on-the-ground kinds of folks.”
Audet and Ralston are running together on what they have called a pro-business ticket, focusing particularly on the agricultural business prominent in Addison County. Ralston is a former two-term Democratic member of the Vermont House of Representatives.
The duo have pushed for creating business incentives and inducing bottom-up change instead of levying taxes. When it comes to environmental policies, for example, Ralston says they are generally in favor of lowering carbon fuel emissions, but opposed to a direct carbon tax.
“One of the issues that I have faced every time I speak to people is that they are afraid of Vermont becoming unaffordable,” Audet said. “We need businesses to thrive to pay taxes. We need businesses to want to employ people. We need businesses to pay people well. That is another big hole of representation that we are finding.”
Ralston cited high taxes as a culprit for the recent business closures in downtown Middlebury, pointing to high property taxes as a barrier for entry and operation.
“Many of the things that we would be promoting are not the big, sexy ideas,” Ralston said. “They are the practical, affordable, simple steps that can be made without raising taxes, without dramatic changes.”
Governor Scott’s support for the independent ticket may well have disappointed Republican hopeful Peter Briggs, who has raised less money than any of the candidates except Flower.
In 2016, when Briggs ran against Ayer and Bray on an agricultural-focused message similar to Audet’s and Ralston’s, he won 21 percent of the votes, compared to Ayer’s 31 percent and Bray’s 27 percent. Briggs is running again with a platform that is against taxation, hardline carbon emissions reduction bills and gun control laws.
Audet and Ralston have clashed with Bray, the lone incumbent in the race. During the campaign, the independent ticket questioned Bray’s agricultural and environmental policies, framing them as out of touch with the farming community.
Bray defended his track record, citing bills that he proposed which have provided farm subsidies, protected and maintained current use, and helped farmers integrate to greener options.
“Within two months of arriving, I started crafting legislation, which I have been for a decade, that is highly supportive of farmers,” said Bray. “Bill after bill, program after program, and dollar after dollar, I have stepped up to support farmers to change their practices. Every large and medium farm in this state has received many, many thousands of dollars.”
Bray also added that Blue Spruce Farms, which Audet owns, received millions of dollars worth of government support in the last decade. Citing this example, Bray pointed to the pragmatic flaws of the independents’ policies, stating that subsidies and regulations must go together.
“There is a certain hypocrisy with accepting high levels of subsidies, from government and state, and then rejecting regulation that travels with it,” he said. “It is environmental and economy that go hand in hand.”
Bray’s platform is centered on balancing the environment with business opportunities. For example, he pointed to the Farm to Plate program, which has created new work opportunities while increasing access to healthy local produce.
Bray also jabbed at Ralston, who previously served in the statehouse as a Democratic representative. “One of the opponents in the Senate race has a four year record already in the Vermont house,” said Bray, referring to Ralston. “I would invite and encourage anyone who is considering candidates to carefully scrutinize that record, and look at what contributions that legislator made on issues that we are talking about today.”
According to Sun Community News, Ralston himself sent a perplexing message to potential voters at a candidate forum held in Bristol on Oct. 17, seeming to encourage constituents to vote for Audet and Hardy.
“This campaign has been a bit of a Dickensian experience for me: The best of times, the worst of times,” Ralston said. “I do believe it would be good for us to have fresh ideas... the best decision may be to send two women to Montpelier as our senators”
But, Ralston later elaborated that the message was not to annul his own ticket.
“We are trying to get elected, both Marie and I need to go to Montpelier. We need to go to Montpelier together. That is what I hope happens,” Ralston said. “If that cannot happen, there needs to be a change and that means someone else of the six people has to go. In that moment, I thought, ‘People should think about whether a good alternative is sending two women to Montpelier.’”
Despite differences, candidates coalesced around the importance of college students exerting their voting rights either in local elections or in elections back home.
“Middlebury College students, in particular, are here for four years and live here and it is your home. There are a lot of things that happen in the Vermont legislature that affect you while you are living in Vermont,” Hardy said. “If I am elected, I really hope that Middlebury College students will come to the state house. I can help them make their voices heard.”
Editor’s Note: Ruth Hardy is the spouse of Prof. Jason Mittell, The Campus’ academic advisor. Mittell plays no role in any editorial decisions made by the paper. Any questions may be directed to campus@middlebury.edu.
(10/25/18 9:56am)
The judge presiding over the legal case that may determine the future of affirmative action in higher education is Allison D. Burroughs, who graduated from the college in 1983.
The conservative-led group Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) brought a lawsuit against Harvard, claiming that the university discriminates against Asian applicants. The divisive case has inflamed both opponents and supporters of affirmative action, given the wide impact it could have on higher education. The trial is expected to end next week. But however Burroughs rules, the case stands a strong chance of eventually reaching the U.S. Supreme Court on appeal, where justices may choose to restrict the role of race in college admissions.
Burroughs, a judge on the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts, graduated from the college with a degree in political science before pursuing a law degree at the University of Pennsylvania. Following her appointment to the District Court by President Barack Obama in 2014, she gained significant notoriety in January 2017, when she issued a temporary restraining order against President Donald J. Trump’s travel ban.
SFFA originally filed a motion in 2014, arguing that the structure of Harvard’s admissions process essentially creates an illegal racial quota, favoring white, Hispanic and black students while discriminating against Asian applicants. SFFA has compared Harvard’s policies to the quotas established in the 1920s that targeted Jewish students.
PIA CONTRERAS
As evidence for discrimination, the group has also cited a 2013 internal Harvard report showing that the university’s admissions committee assigned lower “personality ratings” to Asian applicants than those of other racial or ethnic groups.
Harvard has denied SFFA’s accusations and maintains that the admissions committee did not institute target-quotas against any particular group, be it racial, geographic or any other category. Instead, the institution has said it provides “some attention to numbers” in order to preserve its diverse community. Joined by its fellow Ivy League universities and other schools like MIT and Stanford in an amicus brief, Harvard has defended a “holistic” admissions approach that is conscious of racial identity.
The plaintiffs proposed a new form of affirmative action which would focus on socio-economic status. In response, Rakesh Khurana, the dean of Harvard College, said that Harvard’s goal is not to accurately represent the income distribution of the nation, according to the Harvard Crimson.
“What we’re trying to do is identify talent and make it possible for them to come to a place like Harvard,” Khurana said.
Attention to the case increased after the U.S. Department of Justice announced internally in 2017 that it was funneling resources into investigating and possibly litigating against “race-based discrimination in college and university admissions.” However, a year earlier, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld in a case against the University of Texas that race was a permissible admissions factor.
Political Science Professor Murray Dry suspects that Burroughs will uphold the Supreme Court’s precedent, thus reaffirming Harvard’s holistic approach. But he noted that new factors set the Harvard case apart from previous lawsuits, such as SFFA’s strong accusations of discrimination and Burroughs’ own judgement.
“As Judge Burroughs said when she gave her talk last fall at Middlebury, a judge must apply the facts to the law in an impartial manner,” Dry said. “I have full confidence that she will do just that.”
Not everyone has demonstrated the same confidence in Burroughs’ impartiality. An individual going by the name “Veritas in Diversitas” circulated an email to all the reporters covering the trial, the New York Times reported Monday, insinuating that Burroughs was biased against Harvard because she had been denied admission there as an undergraduate. The email, titled “Federal Judge Hides Her Own Painful History of Harvard Rejection,” insists that Burroughs remains bitter about her own rejection as the child of an alumnus, though Burroughs already disclosed the fact in the pretrial hearings.
Despite the inflammatory message, both parties in the trial declared that they did not wish for Burroughs, who has worked on the case since 2014, to recuse herself.
Regardless of the decision she eventually reaches, Burroughs may not decide the ultimate fate of the case. Dry, a former teacher of Burroughs’, recalls her telling him that the case would ultimately be settled “above her paygrade,” meaning it would likely be appealed to the First Circuit and eventually to the Supreme Court, no matter how she rules.
The lawsuit would face a different set of justices compared to previous affirmative action cases if it reaches the Supreme Court. With the addition of Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch, the court has swung right, and a ruling against race-conscious admissions may change universities’ admissions policies across the country.
While the case could significantly impact Middlebury’s admissions process, Dean of Admissions Greg Buckles warned against jumping to conclusions too quickly.
“We are monitoring the situation through the media, professional conferences, and our various consortium relationships,” Buckles said. “There isn’t much to say right now, given it’s an ongoing trial that will likely take quite some time to wrap up. Until we know more, I’m not prepared to speculate on the possible outcomes.”
(10/11/18 10:00am)
The hearings and subsequent confirmation of now-U.S. Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh sparked national outrage that resonated with many members of the college community over the past two weeks. Across campus, students and faculty publicly expressed their support for Dr. Christine Blasey Ford and survivors of sexual assault with signs, a “Walkout Against the Patriarchy” and chalked messages on pathways.
Signs Supporting Survivors
“WE BELIEVE SURVIVORS,” declared signs that surfaced across campus after the tumultuous Senate hearing addressing Dr. Ford’s sexual assault allegations against Justice Kavanaugh. The lead organizer of the postering campaign, who requested anonymity given her probation status from the Charles Murray protest, printed several posters and emailed the PDF file of the posters to multiple co-activists including Grace Vedock ’20 and Taite Shomo ’20.5.
“I wanted to do something to help make women and survivors feel supported on this campus. To help them feel heard. Believed. Safe. They were my motivation,” the student wrote in a message. “Beyond campus, my sisters were my motivation. My mom. My friends. My future nieces.”
However, responses have not all been positive. Certain signs, such as one posted outside of Proctor Dining Hall, were almost immediately ripped down. Throughout the next few days, additional signs were vandalized and restored. Soon after the initial incident, the Community Bias Response Team (CBRT) weighed in, condemning the vandalism in an all-school email and noting that it violated “the general principle of respectful behavior and community standards.”
A similar action took place outside the suite of Juliana Dunn ’19.5, Vee Duong ’19 and Nathan Nguyen ’19. In a Facebook post, Dunn shared that a student continued to erase the “WE BELIEVE CHRISTINE” text on the whiteboard outside their suite and remove similar paper signs. As of Tuesday evening, the messages had been collectively vandalized nine times.
[pullquote speaker="" photo="" align="center" background="on" border="all" shadow="on"]Supporting survivors should be the norm, not a radical act.[/pullquote]
“As a suite we are unsurprised but still stung by the ripping down and erasing of our signs of solidarity; it felt particularly painful to those of us who are survivors,” the suite members collectively wrote in a message to The Campus. “Supporting survivors should be the norm, not a radical act. We want to expect more of our peers and the institution, but our experiences on campus have largely taught us to prepare for less.”
The primary organizer of the poster campaign also wrote “BELIEVE SURVIVORS” on the chalk message board next to the mail room, including the hotline for WomenSafe (800-388-4205). Throughout the twenty-minute setup process, dozens of women stopped to express their gratitude and identify themselves as survivors.
Protest Against Patriarchy
A “Walkout Against the Patriarchy” started small but grew to a crowd of about 40 professors and students outside of Proctor on Oct. 4. Participants gathered in front of the steps to the dining hall with signs protesting Justice Kavanaugh’s nomination and many passersby joined in after seeing what was occurring.
The mood was somber. Participants expressed their frustration at the Republican Party’s continued support of Justice Kavanaugh despite the accusations of sexual assault, and shared their belief that recent events put women across the nation at risk. Many said they were afraid that Justice Kavanaugh’s confirmation to the Supreme Court would threaten the right to abortion protected by Roe v. Wade.
Participants also discussed concrete ways to make a difference, such as voting and talking about uncomfortable issues with family members and friends. Some suggested that to create change, they would need to look outside of the “Middlebury bubble” and engage with the world at large.
The professors in attendance hoped that their students and their students’ generation as a whole would work hard to protect sexual assault survivors and improve the lives of all women.
Gender Studies professors Laurie Essig and Sujata Moorti, Writing and Rhetoric professor Catharine Wright and Director of Chellis House Karin Hanta arranged the event with help from other faculty members.
“It was last minute,” Essig said. “We got some posters up and put it on Facebook on Wednesday, the day before.”
“I just happened to stumble upon the protest on my way home and stayed a bit to hear people’s thoughts and responses to the situation,” Melisa Topic ’19 said. “I appreciated the mixed student-faculty attendance because I believe it showed both unity and support from all sources on this campus, and demonstrated the diversity in individuals that are feeling some type of way about the Kavanaugh nomination.”
The next day, Feminist Action at Middlebury (FAM) and the Student Government Association (SGA) encouraged students to participate in a “blackout” by wearing black to show support for survivors of sexual assault and for Dr. Ford, Ramirez and Swetnick.
On Saturday, the Senate voted 50-48 to confirm Justice Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. He was sworn in later that day.
Chalk in Solidarity
Using a rainbow of chalk, students scrawled messages of frustration, despair and support in response to Kavanaugh’s confirmation. Some of the messages were longer: “Men Need to Hold Other Men Accountable” and “Age Does Not Excuse Assault,” while others were simple and impactful: “Believe Survivors” and “We Believe Dr. Ford.”
The chalking was organized by Taite Shomo ’20.5 and executed on Monday and Tuesday.
“I happen to believe those allegations, but his appointment to the Court is much larger than just him. It’s a symbolic message to survivors of sexual assault and abuse that our experiences don’t matter,” Shomo said.
[pullquote speaker="Shomo '20.5" photo="" align="center" background="on" border="all" shadow="on"]The idea that a person can inflict something so painful and traumatizing on another person with no consequences is devastating.[/pullquote]
“I was assaulted when I was 13, only a little younger than Dr. Ford when she was assaulted,” she said. “The idea that a person can inflict something so painful and traumatizing on another person with no consequences is devastating.”
Shomo wonders if she, or other survivors at Middlebury, may someday have to experience what Dr. Ford has gone through, and if they do, whether their story will even matter.
“Chalking campus felt like a cathartic and immediate way to channel some of the anger and sadness I’ve been feeling since Kavanaugh’s appointment in a constructive way” she said.
The purpose of the chalking was not only personal expression. Shomo also hoped to send a message to both survivors and assaulters on campus.
“There are people here who care about what survivors have been through and care about assaulters being held accountable for their actions — even if those actions took place in high school or college,” Shomo said.
Shomo described one moment of the chalking that was particularly rewarding. As she and her girlfriend were writing in front of Proctor, a student walked up to them and asked to borrow their chalk. The student scribed two powerful words: “Me Too.”
(09/13/18 10:00am)
A Talenti gelato tub-turned-coin jar and a Chicago flag lamp sit on the desk of Student Government Association President Nia Robinson ’19, two items not unlike their owner, straddling the line between two identities.
Robinson remembers watching The Rosa Parks Story as a child with her grandmother while eating saltines and drinking Lipton tea. She also recalls the way that her cousins would make fun of her for “being so dark, but talking so white.”
Moving to school in the suburbs in fourth grade, Robinson began to grapple with the concept of race. She would receive questions about her white stepfather when he arrived to pick her up after school or why her speech did not match her skin tone. “You’re just trying to be white,” Robinson recalls the accusations, “Why don’t you talk like how you are supposed to?”
This sense of in-betweenness was the focal point of Robinson’s TEDxMiddlebury Talk in the fall of 2017, where she discussed the feelings of otherness that have lingered since her childhood.
“Most of my life has been spent in predominantly white schools. Half of my family is white and eventually everywhere I went, I was the other,” she said. “Even when I was surrounded by black people, I was the other.”
In that same speech, Robinson described that same sense of otherness at Middlebury. She remembered her unease at the pauses and stares she and her family received when they entered Mr. Ups restaurant, and the stream of questions from parents about “her experiences.” Despite being a student for two and a half years, looming reminders such as the portraits of past presidents seemed to remind her that she did not belong.
Yet in her confident words to the audience on the TEDx stage, Robinson concluded that “we are not as lost as we think we are.” In fact, Robinson later recalls that the conference itself was a turning point in the trajectory of her Middlebury career.
“I will be clear and also candid, I had a really rough time my first two years here.” said Robinson. “I think it was through TEDx that I worked through a lot of my issues here.”
Most importantly, she walked away with a visceral understanding of both the amazing capacity of empathy to mend and of vulnerability as a medium for understanding.
“You need to be the person that you needed when you were younger, and I think about that all the time,” she said. “I kind of need to be the person that I needed for my first and second year for other first years.”
This deep empathy is what colors all of Robinson’s actions and what she strives for in her leadership. As a former member of the college’s Community Judicial Board and a former co-president of the Black Student Union, Robinson has incorporated this sense of deep understanding for others to be a key liaison between the community, faculty, administrators and students.
It is this experience that prepared Robinson to build her platform in the 2017 SGA Presidential race. She won 66 percent of the vote, with 687 more votes than the runner-up.
“She listens. She speaks hard truths in a way that people can hear. She stays connected,” said President Laurie Patton. “When I first met Nia in 2016, we began by talking about poetry. Then we talked about the Black Students’ Union. Then the overall student experience at Middlebury. Then the pursuit of sociology. At ease with each one of these topics, Nia showed that she was wise — empathetic and critical at one and the same time.”
Charlotte Tate, associate director of the Rohatyn Center for Global Affairs, spoke to Robinson’s incredible talent for connecting with almost any individual. After coincidentally running into Tate and her masters swim team, Robinson immediately forged a friendship with the entire group of middle-age swimmers. She continues to join the group for their 7:30 a.m. post-workout gathering - regardless of her busy academic and work schedule.
Robinson’s ability to connect deeply with others extends well beyond Old Chapel and the faculty. Clark Lewis ’19, a fellow Posse scholar and close friend, recalled their final interview for the Posse scholarship. In an atmosphere of intense competition, finalists boasted about their academic achievements and brandished their extracurricular activities.
“Then, there was Nia,” Lewis said. “While the rest of us were trying our best to answer the judges’ questions, Nia instead got up in front of the group and sang a song. It was ‘Three Little Birds’ by Corinne Bailey.” Everyone in the room was stunned silent, Lewis said.
Since stepping foot on campus, Robinson has seen vulnerability as a power rather than a flaw, using her deep understanding of others to connect with people regardless of their labels and tags. Robinson has used her experiences of being lost to help others be found. When asked whether she believes in the power of vulnerability, her eyes welled up before she nodded and broke into one of her classic smiles.
(05/09/18 10:02pm)
President Laurie L. Patton announced changes this week within the senior leadership group, the 17-member advisory council. A nine-member cabinet will be formed out of that group to “improve the efficiency of decision making” in Old Chapel.
The new cabinet represents some of Patton’s closest advisors. It includes provost Jeff Cason, treasurer David Provost, spokesman Bill Burger, diversity officer Miguel Fernandez, advancement VP Colleen Fitzpatrick, human resources VP Karen Miller, general counsel Hannah Ross, dean of students Baishakhi Taylor, and chief of staff Dave Donahue.
The non-cabinet members of the senior leadership group include admissions dean Greg Buckles, academic officials Andi Lloyd and Tim Spears, philanthropic advisor Mike Schoenfeld, and representatives from the schools — Jeff Dayton-Johnson, Stephen Snyder and Carlos Velez.
With the announcement, Patton fulfilled a pledge to faculty to maintain the costs of SLG and to shrink its size. But the change to a smaller cabinet does not demonstrate an actual change in executive compensation. In an interview, spokesman Bill Burger said that compensation is not increased or decreased when a person is either designated or removed from a senior leadership position.
“Just because they are not sitting on the senior leadership group does not mean that you (do not) need that person in the job they have,” Burger said. “You could make a decision to not have the head of schools abroad and the language schools sit in the (senior leadership) group, it still does not mean you do not need the head of schools abroad and language schools,” he said.
Provost added, “Their pay is for their job, whether they are on one committee or another.”
When asked where the cost-saving measures would occur if compensation was not altered by shrinking the size of the SLG, Provost and Burger pointed to a more long-term strategy of either merging roles or organization restructuring after key individuals resign.
“When Katy Smith Abbott stepped down, (Patton) took two student life positions and made it one,” Provost said. “So that is one fewer SLG member. That demonstrates (Patton’s) commitment to that. I wouldn’t be surprised if we see more of that.”
Burger added, “You might have people leave over time and then you do not replace them — that is a possibility. Sometimes these (changes) are done through organizational changes.”
The announcement comes at a time of increased scrutiny for administrators, who faced criticism for the practice of “stay bonuses” involved in the 2015 presidential transition.
During Patton’s briefing at the faculty meeting, she cited that costs of the SLG were already $300,000 less than the previous year. In an interview with The Campus, Provost supported Patton’s claim by citing a lack of increases for executives in the previous year.
“Last year there was zero [net change] for anyone with a salary of $200,000 and above — no increases for senior leadership last year,” he said.
According to research done by faculty, executive bonuses and payouts were above market-competitive rates. In the context of the college’s financial crisis and increasing tuition fees, some argued that these policies were a gross mismanagement of college finances.
Treasurer David Provost has argued that stay bonus payouts appearing on the 990 tax form made executive pay look higher in some years, but that base compensation has consistently been in line with market rates.
The bonuses effectively encourage key officials to remain at Middlebury during presidential transitions, two administrators said, and that years that appear especially high in executive compensation are the result of stay bonuses and should not be viewed as the norm.
Two officials close to the president said that while she intended to reduce the number and size of stay bonuses, she would not commit to ending the practice altogether.
“I’m still interested in maintaining a very modest use of these bonuses because they are used in higher ed to prevent a kind of constant searching and turning over,” Patton said during a faculty meeting in February. “But as you saw from the data, my interest and commitment to them is very modest. They are one tool among many, and I am committed to moving to most of those other tools before we do that.”
During the same meeting, college treasurer David Provost revealed that beginning in 2009, 11 different retention bonuses were distributed among seven administrators. The compensation ranged from annual amounts of $50,000 to $100,000, with total payouts summing $150,000 to $250,000. His presentation also revealed that Middlebury’s total executive pay of $4.1 million was higher than the $3.6 million average of peer institutions.
Three administrators are have stay bonuses that are still being paid out: provost Jeff Cason, admissions dean Greg Buckles and finance VP Mike Thomas. Bonuses are only paid when the recipient stays at Middlebury for the agreed-upon number of years.
At the faculty meeting in February, Provost reported an additional bonus for President Liebowitz that had not yet been disclosed in form 990 filings. Because the college received an extension to the reporting deadline last November, the amount of this bonus will only be made public on May 15.
(05/02/18 8:37pm)
College recruitment data cited in a recent New York Times article reveals a trend of recruitment at whiter and richer high schools, with Middlebury’s recruitment strategy noticeably lacking in comparison to its peers that demonstrate a more diversity-conscious approach.
The article, “Colleges Recruit at Richer, Whiter High Schools,” by University of Arizona doctoral candidate Karina Salazar and UCLA professor Ozan Jaquette, uses data from 42 colleges. Salazar and Jaquette argue that despite touting a commitment to diversity, many colleges’ recruitment practices indicate otherwise.
Connecticut College’s recruitment record proved to be one of the whitest and richest, as the college visited schools where the median family income was on average $119,000. Demographically, it visited schools with an average of 66 percent white students.
According to the analysis, Middlebury ran in the middle of the pack. It recruited from locations where family median income was on average $101,000, and did not visit locations where family median income was $62,000. In terms of racial composition, the schools Middlebury visited have an average demographic of 57 percent white students.
Though Middlebury’s recruitment strategy falls near the middle of the total sample, the college is noticeably lacking in comparison to its peer schools. Williams, Wellesley and Swarthmore visited high schools where the average share of white students was 46, 37 and 41 percent respectively.
Middlebury’s recruitment strategy may be the reason for its comparatively lackluster performance in both racial and economic diversity on campus. Middlebury is the fifth whitest school in the NESCAC, with white students making up 63 percent of its student body. In addition, a much smaller percent of students apply for need-based aid than at comparative institutions.
While diversity at Middlebury is currently eclipsed by its peer institutions, the admissions office is attempting to make slow and steady progress, according Greg Buckles, dean of admissions.
“We do work hard to find a balance in our travel,” Buckles said. “All of our travel includes outreach with community-based organizations, whether that is College Match in Los Angeles or Posse in any of its different locations or any of the dozens of outreach programs that we do.”
“We strive to find an appropriate balance between places where we have typically had a lot of interest and applications with new places where we are trying to create new and more interest,” Buckles said.
Over the past decade, more minority students have both applied to and enrolled at the college. In 2008, 1,041 applicants were students of color. In the past admissions cycle, 2,026 applicants were students of color, reflecting an increase of more than 100 percent. And 138 students of color enrolled at the college in 2008 compared to 204 in the past year, an increase of over 50 percent.
“We are very pleased with that, but we do not see it as an end game,” Buckles said. “We are not satisfied yet.”
The admissions office recently joined the American Talent Initiative, which seeks to address inequities in access to higher education. This group of 290 universities and colleges, combined with philanthropic organizations, seeks to graduate 50,000 lower-income students from its member institutions by 2025.
Buckles noted that President of the college Laurie L. Patton’s next major fundraising campaign will be geared towards financial aid and access. He also highlighted a change in policy this year in which the college transitioned to a need-blind process for DACA and undocumented students.
“We have gone from low single digits to dozens of admitted DACA and undocumented students this year,” Buckles said. “It has been an amazing increase.”
Within the admissions office itself, Buckles noted a commitment to diversity through diverse staffing, fluency in several languages, and further partnership and affiliation with organizations such as Posse.
“We strive, per the strategic plan and what we see as our mission as an educational institution, to create as accessible and inclusive a student body and community as possible,” he said.
(04/25/18 11:22pm)
THE CAMPUS ELECTS NEW TOP EDITORS
The Campus editorial board elected Will DiGravio ’19 editor in chief for the upcoming academic year. Nick Garber ’19 and Rebecca Walker ’19 were elected managing editors.
DiGravio, who ran for the position unopposed, began his tenure with the paper as a news writer his first semester and became a news editor the following year. He currently serves as the paper’s managing editor.
Garber also joined The Campus staff as a news writer and became an editor for the section during the winter term of his sophomore year. Walker joined the paper’s local section during her first semester and became an editor for that section during winter term of that academic year. Both Garber and Walker served as senior editors for their respective sections this past fall before departing for semesters abroad.
This is the first year The Campus has elected two managing editors.
— Sabine Poux
PATTON ELECTED TO ACADEMY of ARTS & SCIENCES
President Laurie L. Patton was elected to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences’ 238th class of members last week. The academy has honored leaders in a variety of disciplines since its founding in 1780. Once inducted, members are expected to participate in a variety of initiatives and publications managed by the academy.
Patton was elected for her excellence in academic scholarship and administration.
“The primary criterion is excellence in one’s field — as an interclass candidate, this means she was chosen for excellence in both religious studies and academic administration,” said Kristin Gustafson, the academy’s director of membership and elections.
“I’m still trying to absorb the news,” Patton said in a Newsroom article published last week. “I’m deeply honored to be part of such a remarkable group of individuals elected to this year’s class and to join the members who have preceded us in the academy’s history. They will always be my teachers.”
The class of 2018 includes 213 new members, including author Ta-Nehisi Coates, actor Tom Hanks, 44th president of the United States Barack Obama, and Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor.
An induction ceremony will take place in Cambridge, Massachusetts, in October. New members sign a book that includes the signatures of members such as Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, Albert Einstein, Robert Frost and Martin Luther King, Jr.
— Elizabeth Sawyer
SGA TO HOLD STAFF APPRECIATION DAY
In celebration of Staff Appreciation Day, the Student Government Association will sponsor a free dinner for the college’s staff members on April 30 in Atwater dining hall. Staff members are encouraged to bring immediate family to the event, which will be catered by the Waybury Inn.
“Every day, Middlebury students are positively affected by the contribution you make to our campus, and this deserves celebration,” said the SGA in an email to the entire college staff.
The SGA also sent an email to students asking for short thank-you messages for staff members for a video compilation that will be presented at the dinner. The email additionally called for student volunteers to help set-up, serve and clean-up at the event, as well as volunteers to babysit children of staff members.
Students can visit go/thankyoustaff to contribute to the thank-you video compilation.
— Sabine Poux
COLLEGE JOINS AMERICAN TALENT INITIATIVE
The college recently joined the American Talent Initiative, an organization that aims to “attract, enroll, and graduate 50,000 additional high-achieving, low- and moderate-income students at the nation’s top colleges and universities” by 2025, according to their website.
Institutions associated with ATI strive to boost access to higher education. As a member, Middlebury will take steps to matriculate a larger number of low-income students, which complements existing policies at the college, including need-blind admissions, grants for unpaid summer internships, and First@Midd.
Some of Middlebury’s new strategies will include improving recruitment and transfer processes, prioritizing of need-based aid, developing systems that help raise lower-income students’ graduation rates and increasing the number of applicants and students eligible for Pell Grants.
ATI was made up of 30 member institutions when it formed in 2016, and has grown to include 100. Seventeen states’ flagship universities, the entire Ivy League, and dozens of other private colleges are already members.
— Nicole Pollack
(04/04/18 8:44pm)
Richard Sander, professor of law at UCLA, defended his controversial “mismatch theory” at a lecture held at the Kirk Alumni Center on Tuesday, contending that affirmative action policies hurt minority students. Sander was invited by the College Republicans.
His lecture was followed by a Q&A segment moderated by Caitlyn Myers, a professor of economics. Myers noted weaknesses in Sander’s data before raising questions submitted by students to an online form. Finally, audience members asked questions.
Surrounded by Public Safety officers, the Kirk Alumni Center welcomed a myriad of audience members, ranging from curious students to school administrators. Guests were greeted with signs indicating that the event was only open to Middlebury ID holders. The notification added that “Signs, banners, posters, bullhorns, or noisemakers are not permitted inside.”
David Rubinstein ’18 read aloud the Demonstrations & Protests policy of the college handbook before the talk, and Jigar Bhakta ’18 then introduced Sander. Sander began his presentation by citing data from the University of Michigan college and law school. He said that minority students needed significantly lower scores from its internal academic index, based on test scores and grades, in order to receive an offer from the school. He argued that these minority students were academically unqualified to be admitted.
“What you see in the law school, for example, is that African Americans had a 96 percent chance of admission if their index score was above 710,” Sander said. “That is a range where white admissions were very, very low.”
“When you have a system like this, and when you have students going to the most elite institution that admits them, it means that there is going to be a really large racial gap along credential lines,” he added.
Sander presented data on the distribution of first-year GPAs across racial lines at elite schools, arguing that immediately upon arrival, certain minority groups already demonstrated inferior academic performance. He cited data from the California Bar Association, showing that the out-of-state bar passage rate of white students was 68 percent for whites and only 22 percent for African Americans.
Sander said he had difficulty obtaining this data from the California Bar, and lamented the challenges of conducting controversial research.
“We have an incredibly chilled discourse,” Sander said. “I think that does a disservice because the conclusion that a lot of us who engage with this research is that if we can solve these problems, we can substantially ameliorate them, we can very substantially reduce racial disparities for a lot of outcomes.”
Sander said he does not favor a “simple abolition of racial preferences,” but instead favors increased socio-economic preferences and greater data transparency.
Professor Myers then joined Sanders at the podium and presented on empirical evidence. She echoed some of Sander’s points, affirming that racial preferences result in racial test score gaps at top education institutions. She then critiqued his data, pointing to correlated unobservables and small sample sizes as weaknesses.
Myers posed several questions sourced from anonymous student submissions, ranging from skepticism about the extrapolation of data to Sander’s conclusion to questions regarding the social implications of his research and conclusions.
The floor then opened for questions from the audience. Nial Rele ’12, an admissions counselor, delivered an emotional series of questions to Sander.
“I work in the admissions office, and thinking about these topics quite actively — I believe that as educational institutions, particularly highly selective institutions of higher education, we have to be a model for being vehicles for social mobility and equity and change,” he said. “If we are not, what message does that send to our communities?”
Rele continued: “Why are we treating this as an admissions or enrollment problem? Instead how can we think about this as a college environment problem and deal with the problem there? Why are we starting with enrollment? Why are we saying to people critically: you do not belong here?”
In an interview, Elsa Alvarado ’18 said she viewed Sander’s appearance as an opportunity for debate.
“I thought the event was a really valuable opportunity to understand the benefits and shortcomings of affirmative action and to debate ways to reform college admissions. Sander was able to not only present his research but debate his findings with professor Myers and students,” Alvarado said.
“While I may not agree with his conclusions, it was a great discussion to have so that we can try and figure out ways to improve affirmative action as a whole as a means of addressing widespread educational gaps in the U.S.”
(04/04/18 8:31pm)
Ken Burns and Lynn Novick, Emmy Award-winning filmmakers, discussed their new PBS series “The Vietnam War” on March 21 in Wilson Hall. Mike Heaney ’64, a Vietnam War veteran featured in the film, joined Burns and Novick, and Jim Ralph, dean of faculty research, moderated the event. The jam-packed talk welcomed Middlebury College ID holders and alumni.
Burns and Novick have collaborated on several acclaimed documentaries for Florentine Films, Burns’ production company, including “Baseball”, “Jazz,” “Prohibition,” and “The War.”
Following a short introduction of the guests, the event opened with a montage of excerpts from the series. Chosen from five different episodes, the excerpts explored the gamut of perspectives regarding the war, from the scars of the war veteran to the narratives of Vietnamese civilians. The selections demonstrated the wide-ranging breadth of the series, which leads the audience from wartime tragedies to domestic protests, from fissures in public trust toward the government to fatalities on college campuses.
“Many Americans felt patriotic doing different things,” said Burns.
“It was hugely traumatic for our entire country and raised questions about what it means to be a citizen and a patriot that we are still arguing about,” Novick said, later adding, “What we tried in the film was not to make the other wrong.”
Distributed by PBS, the series has reached an audience of more than 50 million in the US. Reflecting on the impact of their work, Novick said, “Our country went through a trauma that we never dealt with.” Those who participated “have never talked about it, but now they are.”
Heaney’s own motivation for sharing his story was also to spark conversation — to “talk to Americans, especially young Americans, about the horror of war.”
Heaney, who participated in the ROTC program at Middlebury, described being wounded in combat and witnessing the deaths of his fellow soldiers. He said that lifting “the voices of all the men that did not make it back” was another reason for his participation in the series. Heaney’s words resonated with many of the alumni sitting in the room, who attended Middlebury while the events of the Vietnam War unfolded.
After the discussion between the guests concluded, Ralph opened the floor to questions from the audience. Questions came from both students and alumni, ranging from the topic of balancing scholarship with narrative within the film to Heaney’s recent work with veterans suffering from PTSD.
Burns, who worked previously on projects on the Civil War and World War II, concluded on the importance of the topic of war.
“War reflects the worst of us, but it also clearly reflects the best of us, too,” Burns said. “What happens time and time again is that we are drawn to it, obviously because of the sheer intensity of the drama, but we are also obligated to describe the quicksand that war represents.”
According to Burns, the series reminds the audience “how powerful a teacher history is.” Yet at the same time, Burns said, “Americans, it seems, are always destined to learn from those lessons and forget them again.”
(03/21/18 8:47pm)
Middlebury College Republicans will bring Richard Sander, a professor of law at UCLA, to campus on April 3 to discuss his criticisms of affirmative action. Sander’s talk, entitled “Mismatch: Does Affirmative Action Hurt More Than It Helps?” will discuss his “mismatch theory,” which contends that racial preferences such as affirmative action hurt minority students by placing them in overly competitive environments, where their skill sets are not ample.
The event will be open only to Middlebury College ID holders, and will take place at the Kirk Alumni Center, which is located next to the college’s golf course. Following the lecture, Sander will be joined by Caitlin Myers, professor of economics, who will moderate a discussion and Q&A.
Sander is best known for his critique of affirmative action policies and his work surrounding housing segregation. He devoted his early career to researching fair housing policies before serving as president of the Fair Housing Congress of Southern California and founding the Fair Housing Institute. Sander also worked to assess the outcomes of racial preferences in admissions.
In 2004, he published a study reviewing the impact of affirmative action on black students at UCLA law school. The study concluded that affirmative action policies resulted in the acceptance of students whose capabilities were inadequate for the institution’s academic rigor. Sander goes on to connect this “mismatch” of academic ability to black students’ higher attrition rates, and extrapolates that there would be 7.9 percent more black law students passing the bar test had affirmative action policies not existed.
This 2004 study, alongside several cited studies and personal anecdotes, served as the basis for Sander’s 2012 book, “Mismatch: How Affirmative Action Hurts Students It’s Intended to Help, and Why Universities Won’t Admit It,” where he formally introduced “mismatch theory.”
“Sander is a proponent for racial preference programs in admissions,” said Jigar Bhakta ’18, co-president of the College Republicans, “However, his arguments point out (whether right or wrong, empirically) that there is a deep flaw in how affirmative action is being implemented, and that serious reforms are needed to actually further the goal instead of perpetuating a self-destructive cycle of pinning down those it’s intended to prop up.”
In his own words, during an interview for The Atlantic, Sander said, “Many of the people who do research on this, including me, think that racial preferences are also desirable and should be part of any system that we have—as long as we’re paying close attention to whether there are harmful side effects, boomerang effects, in the process.”
Sander’s theories on affirmative action have also received much push back, with several studies disproving his conclusions. For example, a 2015 study by Yale law professors Ian Ayres and Richard Brooks conclude that by eliminating affirmative action, the number of projected black lawyers actually decreased by 12.7 percent.
During his talk in April, Sander will seek to provide evidence for and explain his theories. In addition, Sander plans to focus on discussing the difficulties of conducting empirical research on contentious social topics, as well as the challenges of engaging other academics and the public in constructive dialogue regarding such research. “Part of the failed manifestation of affirmative action, (Sander) argues, is the taboo nature of discussing the facts of affirmative action,” explains Bhakta ’18.
Caitlin Myers, whose research similarly looks at contentious social issues, was selected by the College Republicans to serve as a moderator in the discussion and the Q&A. “My role is to attempt to engage in a substantive, rigorous, and critical dialogue following Sander’s presentation, and to help bring in more voices from the audience,” Myers said. “If there are members of our community who have questions or comments they’d like to suggest to me in advance, I welcome an email.” Questions can also be submitted via an anonymous Google form at go.middlebury.edu/sanderquestion.
The lecture will be held in the Kirk Alumni Center, located beyond the Athletics Center and above the Ralph Myhre Golf Course clubhouse. The College Republicans chose the venue after evaluating with members of the administration a variety of spaces that would both meet their goals and the College’s need for security.
Given Middlebury’s new Interim Procedures for Scheduling Events and Invited Speakers, the process for approval was thorough and comprehensive. The College Republicans formally submitted a request on Jan. 9th and the approval was finalized on March 12th. In accordance with conclusions from the Committee on Speech & Inclusion, the College Republicans will also give advance notice to the community. In addition, the College Republicans have reached out to both specific student organizations that represent underrepresented groups and department chairs notifying them of the event.
The Sander invitation marks the one year anniversary of fallout from protests around Charles Murray’s talk. However, both Bhakta ’18 and Myers remain positive about how the community will react.
“I think we as a community have had our recoil from the overly emotional and content-ignorant reactions to the Murray event,” said Bhakta ’18. “We have all had time to draw our own lines in the sand and reflect on them. I’m not a betting man, but I have faith in us in showing civic discourse and academic debate instead of our fists and pitchforks.”
“Over and over, I have heard Middlebury’s students, staff and faculty express a deep and fundamental desire to create a community that is diverse, inclusive, free and open. The Murray events were deeply painful for so many of us, and we have learned and benefited from the year of reflection that has followed,” Myers said. “I believe the Sander invitation comes from an earnest desire to engage an important question, but I also recognize that it comes as a new opportunity for Middlebury.”
(03/01/18 12:57am)
The admissions office reported in January that applicants to the college reached an all time high. With 9,230 total applications, Middlebury’s pool increased by 3.6 percent from the previous year and exceeds the previous 2013 record.
The announcement arrived shortly before the one year anniversary of the Charles Murray incident, where “The Bell Curve” author’s lecture was met with protest from students. The incident soon drew the attention of national media outlets, thrusting Middlebury into the spotlight and invoking a national debate about free speech on campuses.
As critics of the college emerged from every ideological corner, the admissions office began evaluating the impact of the protests and the negative media coverage that followed. Beginning last spring, the office tracked three data points: withdrawals of early decision applicants, the number of campus visitors through June and yield for regular decision applicants.
But the data collected led to an unexpected conclusion: The impacts of the Murray incident on admissions were marginal at best.
“We lost nobody who applied and was admitted early decision,” said Greg Buckles, dean of admissions. “Our regular decision yield was up just a little bit, and we had a great number of visitors. We were on track with the previous spring, which was a record year.”
Despite speculation that coveted regular decision applicants would be discouraged from accepting their admission offers, the college’s yield rate for the class of 2021 reached a five-year record high of 43 percent.
The admissions office also hired an external consultant, who interviewed four sets of eight to ten students across the country on their perception of Middlebury, including in the surveys questions about the Murray incident.
The polling results ultimately drew two major conclusions. For students who didn’t view Middlebury as one of their top schools, few were aware of the situation at all. For students who favored Middlebury, the incident simply reflected the critical debate taking place on college campuses across the nation.
“The consistent response we heard, if I can sum it up, was essentially: that just sounds like what college is supposed to be — a bunch of people in lively debate and argument,” Buckles said.
Some conservative first-year students saw the incident as providing room for conversation and civil debate.
“I knew that Middlebury was a very liberal school when I applied and that being conservative here would put me in the minority,” Brendan Philbin ’21 said. “The Charles Murray incident actually made me more excited to come here, as it opened the door for many discussions about free speech on campus, a topic about which I am very passionate.”
For others, Middlebury’s qualities and opportunities eclipsed the blemish of the incident.
“I thought lightly about it, but the actions of a few rowdy individuals do not and should not reflect the viewpoints of the entire Middlebury student body,” Allan Lei ’21 said. “On top of that, Middlebury had always been one of my top choices, so I just wasn’t gonna let that overshadow my deep enthusiasm for the school.”
Incoming students are not alone in viewing the aftermath of the incident positively. Andi Lloyd, dean of the faculty, said, “At least some prospective faculty suggested that they appreciate the fact that Middlebury is actively engaging these issues — issues that are, of course, not unique to Middlebury — as hard as those conversations may be, they see it as a good thing that we are actually having them.”
“I believe that the incidents have had, in the long run, a positive effect on our community,” Nora Bayley ’21 said. “We have used the incidents to realize flaws in our administration and governing system, and have tried to fix them to better represent our community as a whole.”
Although the Murray incident had a marginal impact on the growth of the college’s applicant pool and its reputation, the critical internal conversations have allowed Middlebury to establish itself as a leader in the broader national discussion about speech on campus.
A committee on speech and inclusion was formed in response to the incident, and recently issued its first report and recommendations for campus change. The past fall, the faculty also launched “Critical Conversations: Advancing a Culture of Freedom and Inclusivity.” As part of the series, the college invited a panel of scholars to discuss the creation of a robust and inclusive public sphere. In a completely different capacity, first year students were also able to navigate the topic of speech in the seminar course “Free Speech v. Racist Speech” led by Professor Erik Bleich.
“The only way to find compromise is to listen, and I think now we’re starting to have the conversations we need to be having,” Emma Clinton ’21 said. “People are talking, the administration is listening, and hopefully that will bring change for the better.”
(02/22/18 2:25am)
President Laurie L. Patton sent four school-wide emails last week outlining major projects occurring in the spring and following semesters. The emails laid out a variety of initiatives including accreditation, transformational goals for the institution, a contest for new traditions and restorative practices on campus.
In the first email, Patton announced that Middlebury’s accreditation evaluation is scheduled for fall 2019. To prepare for the review, the college will launch a self-study addressing the New England Association of Schools and Colleges’ (NEASC) nine standards for accreditation.
Interim provost Jeff Cason and associate provost for planning LeRoy Graham will co-chair the self-study, which will be coordinated by the Office of the Provost and will seek input from the steering committee.
A draft of the final self-study is projected to be finished by spring 2019 and then will be distributed among the Middlebury community for review. The NEASC will receive the final report from Middlebury in summer 2019 and its review team will visit several on-campus locations in the summer and fall.
In the second email, sent Wednesday, Feb. 14, Patton announced that the Board of Trustees endorsed three transformational goals for the college as next steps in the Envisioning Middlebury process. The committee that spearheaded the effort described the Middlebury they envision by pursuing their goals: Middlebury as a center for persuasive and inclusive dialogue, a laboratory for curricular innovation and experiential learning and a globally networked changemaker.
Small working groups of student leaders, faculty and trustees will collaborate this spring to identify objectives to forward the three goals. Provost Susan Baldridge will detail further instructions for how individuals can align their work with the strategic framework in the next few days.
The following day, Patton announced a contest for creating new traditions at Middlebury.
Submissions will be judged on the basis of five criteria, including an understanding and appreciation of Middlebury’s 200 year history, capacity for community building and connections, recognition and celebration of our diverse and multifaceted campus, ingenuity and creativity that will inspire students and feasibility. One submission will be announced the winner by the end of April and will be instituted and fully funded by Old Chapel.
Patton ended the week’s communication with an email announcing the adoption of restorative practices on Friday, Feb. 16. Patton emphasized that the restorative practices will not replace disciplinary processes, but that they will “exist alongside those processes.”
The email announced the formation of a steering committee to implement restorative practices at the college. The committee will include one student who completed the restorative practices training in Dec. 2017, dean of students Baishakhi Taylor, dean of the faculty Andi Lloyd, chief diversity officer Miguel Fernández, general counsel Hannah Ross, vice president for human resources and risk Karen Miller, dean of spiritual and religious life Mark Orten and judicial officer Brian Lind.
The committee plans to organize several proactive circles this spring where members of the community will be invited to discuss the Committee on Speech and Inclusion’s Jan. 10 report.
Patton also mentioned that incoming residential life staff will be trained to facilitate restorative practices.
(02/15/18 1:49am)
Tina Brook ’18 is the new face of the Community Council, serving as co-chair with Baishakahi Taylor, dean of students, for the remainder of the year. Brook, who ran a joint campaign with Kyle Wright ’18 last year, returned to campus this winter term from a semester at sea. She took the reins from Wright, who is studying abroad in Spain this spring.
Brook plans to pick up where Wright left off, prioritizing the three recommendations the Council has in the works. These include a proposal to review the residential life system, a proposal on supporting students and communities of color and an inclusive bathroom recommendation.
This academic year, the Community Council was tasked with kick-starting the process of reevaluating the residential life system.
“Residential life does not just mean dormitories, it also extends to libraries, it extends to the dining system,” Brook said, “So there will be an external review of that system and that will look at how we function as a whole community.”
In addition, the Council has been drafting a proposal on supporting students and communities of color in response to recent events at the college in the past year. The plan outlines seven points including hiring an anti-racist consultant and support for establishing a black studies major at Middlebury.
Though the Council has a developed draft, Brook also hopes to take into account of the voices of communities of color in moving forward with the proposal.
“We do not want to (take) over for communities of color on this campus so we are making sure that we are engaging with cultural organizations on this campus to ensure that they have a voice in this recommendation,” Brook said. “Although that may slow the process, that is definitely part of the process that we think is the most pertinent.”
Finally, Brook plans to finalize the inclusive bathroom recommendation pioneered by Wright. The recommendation drafts a timeline for the college to transition bathrooms in public spaces to all-gender and disability-accessible.
While Brook wishes to propel Wright and the Council’s previous work to the finish line, she also hopes to leave space for new recommendations in the second half of the year.
“I do not want to take away from the work that Kyle has done and so I hope to truly continue them, but also leave space to work on some recommendations of my own and to leave space for other Community Council members to bring up new recommendations,” Brook said.
Brook campaigned on a vision of encouraging inclusivity at Middlebury and plans on fulfilling that promise this term.
“I would like to support more recommendations to make sure that people from the athletics department to dance classes, from arts to sports to outdoors, all feel like they can have a vested interest without having to necessarily be a senator, or be on SGA or Community Council,” Brook said. “I think that there are always the same people speaking, which has not necessarily represented the entire student body, nor the full community’s interest.”
Community Council is a cross-sectional body comprised of students, faculty, staff and the administration which convenes weekly to seek multilateral solutions to community issues. The Council makes recommendations to specific offices or members of the administration and serves a consultative role to the President and the SLG. Weekly meetings are held on Mondays from 4:30 to 6:00 p.m. in Axinn 104 and are open to the community.